Greenpeace challenges US approval for Shell's Arctic oil drilling

Greenpeace and a coalition of environmental groups were due to file a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the U.S. government’s approval of Shell’s spill response plan in the Arctic.

The suit alleges that Shell’s plan has not met the minimum legal standards to ensure the safety of the Arctic in the event of a spill, and that the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement approved Shell’s plan by relying on unbelievable assumptions put forward by the company rather than on actual research.

We have good reason for this challenge, in no small part because the administration charged with overseeing Arctic safety has parroted some of Shell’s most absurd PR in defense of this summer’s proposed drilling.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar boasted to the media two weeks ago that “there is not going to be an oil spill,” and that even if there were a spill–troubling caveat!– Shell has said it could clean up 90% of it.

So, you know, don’t worry.

Salazar is an experienced politician with a long track record in government, so it was pretty embarrassing to hear him exaggerating an oil company’s PR without doing wikipedia-level research.

Had he asked a single expert, he would have learned that no sane person would ever claim to collect even 10% of a marine spill, let alone a spill in ice. He certainly would have been sure to avoid boasting that there won’t be a spill. Why? Because this statement is completely at odds with the facts. Shell is one of the most accident prone oil companies of all time, and its record in places such as Nigeria is simply appalling.

But don’t take my word for it. NPR’s Richard Harris sought out experts to cut through Shell's and the government’s Arctic spin and found retired Coast Guard Admiral Roger Rufe, who said:

“Once oil is in the water, it’s a mess. And we’ve never proven anywhere in the world — let alone in the ice — that we’re very good at picking up more than 3 or 5 or 10 percent of the oil once it’s in the water.”

Even Shell, when confronted with these claims, clarified Salazar’s boast, saying that its spill response plan will “encounter”– not “recover” or “clean up” – 95 percent of the oil out in the open water.

Shell spokesman Geoff Merrell, in what may be the understatement of the summer, told Harris: “Because the on-scene conditions can be so variable, it would be rather ridiculous of us to make any kind of performance guarantee.”

Right.

So, if the experts agree that Shell’s plan is ludicrous, and Shell agrees that its plan is ridiculous, how did it get through the BSEE at light speed? Is the agency naive, or are they complicit?

The coalition’s lawsuit contends that BSEE violated the law when it approved spill response plans that do not describe all available spill response resources.

For example: Shell has publicly touted its Arctic containment system, but the spill plans approved by BSEE not only do not include that system, but they also fail to explain why Shell expects any untested system to work in the Arctic Ocean. Nor has the agency ensured that the company is prepared for a late season spill that could continue unabated through the winter.

BSEE also signed off on the response plans without a basic understanding of the consequences of the spill response choices Shell made. The agency never considered the effects of Shell’s proposal to apply toxic dispersants in the Arctic Ocean in the event of a spill, the same dispersants that continue to affect the Gulf two years after the BP Disaster.

Just today ABC News reported that the rates of dolphin and sea turtle deaths have risen to highly unusual levels in the Gulf of Mexico as the dispersants have moved up the food chain.

But I guess if you’re so confident that a company with a terrible safety record doing rickety industrial work in one of the most remote and perilous places on earth won’t mess up, then you probably don’t think said company’s spill response plan needs that close of a look.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Purple Hat
says:

C'mon Mr Obama. Had I been a :US citizen I would have voted for you! Please take the issue of shell and the arctic seriously. I mean really ser...

C'mon Mr Obama. Had I been a :US citizen I would have voted for you! Please take the issue of shell and the arctic seriously. I mean really seriously and listen to Greenpeace and all the other folks who are worried about the destruction of the Arctic.

We are getting flooded over here in the UK like never before. Where do congress think all that water comes from? The moon?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) GREEN Savior
says:

Hey Fuck me,

are you talking about the official Greenpeace-page...who cares, better get ready to watch us...e.g. arriving in London.

Hey Fuck me,

are you talking about the official Greenpeace-page...who cares, better get ready to watch us...e.g. arriving in London.

http://www.stubnitz.org/content/stubnitz-arriving-london-uk

Don't you think a bunch of artists/enthusiasts owning a 50 year old East-German piece of metal who decided to go up north to meet some wonderful Jazz musicians in the Arctic like Tord Gustavsen (Norway) who are able to catch the Arctic Spirit with their music sounds like more fun?

But of course you are free to listen to some Radiohead while you sign a online-Greenpeace-campaign.

...or to our concerts LIVE from the Arctic which will be transmitted worldwide.

For further information/updates please visit our website once a while.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Paul Lukachen
says:

This is simple infuriating the way the rich and the powerful always get they want.....

At the expense of future generations..... That too...

This is simple infuriating the way the rich and the powerful always get they want.....

At the expense of future generations..... That too when asked on how a spill in the arctic would be dealt with they spit of obnoxious facts and data.... this is not just insulting its plain stupid....

Shell shares would get impounded if the arctic drilling fumbles the repercussion for shell would be disastrous the spill will not only be disastrous for shell but also the ecology which today is pristine would be toxic waste in no time

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) CHRISTY-ANNE_B
says:

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER OUR PLANET IS ON THE VERGE OF DESTRUCTION. WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY IS A JOKE TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENTS, DO WE REAL...

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER OUR PLANET IS ON THE VERGE OF DESTRUCTION. WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABILITY IS A JOKE TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENTS, DO WE REALLY WANT TO RAPE NATURE ON ITS LAST LEG? GLOBAL WARMING IS A PROBLEM IN ITSELF, NOW WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH COMPANIES LIKE SHELL TOO? IT IS SO SAD TO SEE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ARCTIC SAFETY SO NEGLIGENT. DONT TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR-> TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR!! THAT WOULD BE GOOD PR! WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR PLANET IN SOME WAY. AND IF DECISIONS CANT BE MADE PROPERLY THEY SHOULD REPLACE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE . "THEIR IS NOT GOING TO BE AN OIL SPILL'' IS NOT THE MOST PROMISING PHRASE. HOW ABOUT WE SEE THE FINE PRINT. I SUPPOSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR ABOUT AN OIL SPILL IF IT TO HAPPEN ANYWAY BECAUSE ITS IS BAD PR... GO FIGURE. HOW THE US CAN OVERLOOK SHELLS NOTORIOUS REPUTATION IN TERMS OF PAST OIL SPILLS IS BEYOND ME, I HOPE AND PRAY THEIR PROJECT FALLS THROUGH AND INVESTORS TURN TO COMPANIES THAT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT DESTROY IT.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) AnotherNonymous
says:

I see the same complaints everywhere.
I'm also shocked that, somehow, they only seem to require the permission of the US; the real owner of ...

I see the same complaints everywhere.
I'm also shocked that, somehow, they only seem to require the permission of the US; the real owner of the arctic?
Why not Norway? Sweden? Japan?! Poland?! Zimbabwe!? ETC.
Why USA?

But, much much worse; and seems to be forgotten by most critics:
This is not about Shell. They will simply be the first, in a massive free for all, oil rush. IF Shell doesn't spill anything, someone else will. A tanker? Who's going to get blamed there? There's so many parties involved in drilling, not just 1 company; if anything happens, they will just be pointing fingers and apologizng; and keep on drilling.

Just like Deepwater. A lot of blame game, a lot of bullshit nocontent powerpoint presentations. Deepwater Horizon (I refuse to call it Macondo, "an imaginary place...") simply generated a lot of talk and opportunities for managers to make presentations and get promotions. The sad truth is that humans are selfish creatures and a lot of managers simply made their career out of the DH spill. NOTHING REAL has changed.
Oh, so many people will be needed to paint the spills over with bs promises and powerpoints.

If Greenpeace accpeted nuclear power, I'd be a green warriror. It is the only real alternative.